Rather than piling on the for the loss last night in the Georgia 6th;
Its the narrative after the loss from the Democrats I find so interesting.

No one was going to come out today from the Democrats and call it a shocking and devastating loss, "closed the gap" and "ran a strong campaign" were the buzz words to be expected.

However this morning on my drive in I heard a pundit comment that the Georgia 6th was too Conservative to ever be winnable and the gap was the victory for the Democrats and showed a dissatisfaction withe the President.

It was an interesting approach and a pretty respectable 180 on the position about this very election maybe a month ago;

However I disagree with the assessment that the truly unsatisfied electorate won't make an "unwinnable" region winnable;

Granted Brown didn't retain the seat two years later;
However the GOP won perhaps one of the safest Democrat Senate seats in the country because of a dissatisfaction with whatever (The Senate, The President, Congress, whatever you want to point to at that moment).

While the Democrats don't need Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, and Kansas to win the Presidency they likely need help from within those States if they want to win the House.

They certainly need to retain Tester in Montana if they have Senate aspirations as well.

I expected the "We almost won, therefore we won" talking points for the next week or so, but then the next step for the Democrats is going to be an interesting one.

Last night's special election for Georgia's 6th District was historic for many reasons, not the least of which was the shear amount of money that flowed into the race. As we pointed out last night, Jon Ossoff spent a staggering $22 million dollars versus only $3 million for Handel...all for a seat where candidates usually spend about $1 million each
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....or-nothing

I don't take the loser's explanation seriously in this race, nor do I consider it a bellwether for Republicans. Trump only carried the area by 1%. It is an upper-middle-class area which Republicans usually carry by 20% or so. It used to Newt Gingrich's old seat, although it has been reshaped since he had it.

There was so much money pouring into the district that, in effect, it became a national election. As a result, the 'foreign' money became an issue. Joe Scarborough pointed out that the Democrat candidate didn't live in the area, couldn't vote for himself, didn't participate in local affairs, didn't attend church there, etc. As a result, it was easy to put his picture beside Nancy Pelosi's, and harvest some votes.

Besides that, there was the attempt to murder a number of Republican house members who were practising for a game the next day. A rare moment of bi-partisan fun turned into a bloody reminder of terrorism and political thuggery.

So it isn't fair to think of this as a normal election.

What will they do? There are reasons to think that the Clintons still are in control -- the craziness in the Justice Department and the FBI, for example, but it looks as if the future of the party is likely to fall into the hands of either Bernie supporters or Warren supporters. If so, it indicates that the Democrats are moving to the left in the near future.

The Democratic National Committee raised nearly $4.3 million in May, making it the organization's worst May on record for fundraising since 2003, according to newly released Federal Election Commission data.

In May 2003, the Democratic group pulled in $2.7 million. Although 2017 is an off-year for fundraising, the DNC has raised between $4.5 million and $20 million every May in the nearly decade and a half since then.

The low number follows another rough fundraising month in April, in which the group hauled in $4.7 million, making it the worst April of fundraising since 2009.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez has said he intends to double the organization's budget from $50 million to $100 million this year, a change that will prove difficult if donations continue to remain below average. Perez defended his performance by saying he has only been leading the DNC for a few months now.

"Well again, I got there on March 1. And so, I was the first to say, we have a lot of rebuilding to do," Perez said on NBC.

Last night's special election for Georgia's 6th District was historic for many reasons, not the least of which was the shear amount of money that flowed into the race. As we pointed out last night, Jon Ossoff spent a staggering $22 million dollars versus only $3 million for Handel...all for a seat where candidates usually spend about $1 million each
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....or-nothing

I don't take the loser's explanation seriously in this race, nor do I consider it a bellwether for Republicans. Trump only carried the area by 1%. It is an upper-middle-class area which Republicans usually carry by 20% or so. It used to Newt Gingrich's old seat, although it has been reshaped since he had it.

There was so much money pouring into the district that, in effect, it became a national election. As a result, the 'foreign' money became an issue. Joe Scarborough pointed out that the Democrat candidate didn't live in the area, couldn't vote for himself, didn't participate in local affairs, didn't attend church there, etc. As a result, it was easy to put his picture beside Nancy Pelosi's, and harvest some votes.

Besides that, there was the attempt to murder a number of Republican house members who were practising for a game the next day. A rare moment of bi-partisan fun turned into a bloody reminder of terrorism and political thuggery.

So it isn't fair to think of this as a normal election.

What will they do? There are reasons to think that the Clintons still are in control -- the craziness in the Justice Department and the FBI, for example, but it looks as if the future of the party is likely to fall into the hands of either Bernie supporters or Warren supporters. If so, it indicates that the Democrats are moving to the left in the near future.

I wonder if part of the reason Ossoff lost was cause of the perception his supporters weren't actually from the south / Georgia . and in fact from places like New York and California . maybe it was starting to look like outsiders were trying to buy a republican seat in the south to advance an agenda not actually from the state

I wonder if part of the reason Ossoff lost was cause of the perception his supporters weren't actually from the south / Georgia . and in fact from places like New York and California . maybe it was starting to look like outsiders were trying to buy a republican seat in the south to advance an agenda not actually from the state

No doubt.
It was Georgia Vs. Hollywood, and Georgia won.

Celebrities may be helpful when trying to win the Presidency;
But I think it hinders more than helps for most House and Senate Races.

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, was the target of attack ads during the election campaign Credit: Reuters

By Chris Graham
22 June 2017 • 6:16am

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, is facing the wrath of fellow Democrats after her party’s special election loss in Georgia this week.

The defeat followed similar disappointments in special House elections in Kansas and Montana, as well as in South Carolina on Tuesday night.

Although the race was widely billed as a referendum on Donald Trump, the embattled president was rarely discussed by either candidate.

Instead, Ms Pelosi of California was the focus of torrents of negative advertising in a House race that cost more than $50 million - the most expensive in history. Republican Karen Handel beat Democrat Jon Ossoff by about 5 percentage points.

Democrats admitted the series of attack ads casting the 77-year-old Pelosi as a San Francisco liberal had found their mark.

Some expressed fears about the same strategy being in next year's midterm elections, in which Democrats need to pick up 24 House seats to retake the majority.

"It makes it a heck of a lot harder," said Congressman Tim Ryan, who unsuccessfully challenged Ms Pelosi in a leadership election last autumn.

"One of the disappointing things from the last couple days is that that approach has a little bit of punch to it, it still moves voters."

Congressman Seth Moulton said it was time for a change at the top.

“Look, I think the Democratic Party has to come to terms with the fact that what we're doing isn't working," Mr Moulton said. "It's time for some change. I think it's time for a new generation of leadership."

Others were blunter when it came to suggesting who was the blame.

"I think you'd have to be an idiot to think we could win the House with Pelosi at the top," Congressman Filemon Vela told Politico. "Nancy Pelosi is not the only reason that Ossoff lost. But she certainly is one of the reasons."

However, Ms Pelosi is unlikely to face a challenger anytime soon and politicians are bemoaning a weak Democratic bench of candidates nationally.

Ms Pelosi has pushed back against the criticism, arguing that coming in a close second in the solidly Republican district augured well for their chances of taking back the House next year.

"Unfortunately a loss for us, but not good news for them," Ms Pelosi told the rank-and-file in a closed door meeting on Wednesday, according to Democrats present.

You've heard of the five stages of death ... it's a sequence of emotions people feel as they come to grips with a great loss. The original Kübler-Ross paradigm identified five 'stages' that people went through in accepting a terminal medical diagnosis ... denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance.

I don't want to elaborate on Kübler-Ross's theory, but it has been applied to everything the emotions of children in divorce to recovery from drug addiction. The death of a political coalition that has lasted 75+ years is a parallel event, certainly for the high officials that lead it.

You could say that the Democrats, up until now, have been stuck in 'denial. They have simply refused to accept the legitimacy of Trump's election, and have been convincing themselves that he did it by cheating somehow. It has to be collusion with the Russians, or Wikileaks, or whatever.

But now that Ossoff has lost his bid, and regardless of what they say, it is clear that Trump's support is not ebbing away.

Are Democrats moving to the next stage, to rage.? Why are they turnng on Pelosi with such hostility?

In the special election, Ossoff brought in more donations from California and New York than he raised in Georgia. It led to Karen Handel running pictures of Ossoff next to Pelosi as part of her campaign literature.

The issue was not Pelosi, it was a reaction to the outside money pouring in, and the policy positions of the Democratic Party generally -- you know, sanctuary cities, thwarting Trump on immigration, etc. etc. Pelosi is only a scapegoat. If this goes forward and she is dumped, they will be eating their own.

Washington (CNN)Nancy Pelosi is sending a defiant message to House Democrats who are grumbling about her leadership: Come at me.

But while Pelosi's critics are increasingly vocal, they have not yet answered critical questions about who would fill her leadership and fundraising roles if they were to mount a serious challenge for the perch atop the party Pelosi has held since 2002. Nor have they identified a challenger.

At least, not yet.

A dozen House Democrats huddled in the office of New York Rep. Kathleen Rice -- an outspoken Pelosi critic -- on Thursday afternoon, among them Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. Most notable was the appearance of Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Those involved in the discussions described them as preliminary among like-minded lawmakers.

"I think there was consensus within the room that there are other members within the caucus who feel just like we do," Texas Rep. Filemon Vela told CNN. He emphasized that the group "was a diverse group from an ideological, geographic and ethnic standpoint."

Increasingly, Democrats concerned about Pelosi's status as a bogeyman on the right -- which Republicans have effectively used to motivate their base voters -- are warning that unless Pelosi is ousted, she could cost the party its shot at winning control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections.

"As long as Leader Pelosi is perceived as the leader of the House Democratic Caucus," Vela said, "Republicans are going to continue to spend millions and millions of dollars in those swing districts to convince those swing voters, those independent voters -- those Republican voters who might go our way -- not to vote for our Democratic candidate because of Leader Pelosi."

Fueling their fears is Democrat Jon Ossoff's loss in a hotly contested House race in the northern Atlanta suburbs.

Ossoff ran on a decidedly moderate platform with millions of dollars to back him up. But his Republican opponent, Karen Handel, as well as a GOP-aligned super PAC and the House Republicans' campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, spent millions on television ads and mailers latching Ossoff to Pelosi.

Fundraising and leadership successes

Still, Democrats would have massive gaps to fill if they were to oust Pelosi.
Chief among those is fundraising. Since 2002, Pelosi has hauled in $568 million for House Democratic campaigns -- including $141 million during the 2016 campaign cycle.
Pelosi also has a long history of holding her party together through difficult votes -- enabling former President Barack Obama to shepherd into law a series of Democratic-backed measures in 2009 and 2010 and later forcing Republicans to grapple with the politically damaging divisions within their own ranks.

No other Democrat possesses the stature to match those accomplishments.

That reality was the subtext for Pelosi's taunting remarks Thursday in which she cast her Democratic critics as hungry for attention rather than serious about ousting her.

"When it comes to personal ambition and having fun on TV, have your fun," Pelosi said. "I love the arena. I thrive on competition."

Of the political impact of the Republican attacks: "I think I'm worth the trouble," she said.

But Pelosi's camp signaled she is taking the grumbling seriously. Allies and grassroots supporters were sent suggested tweets Thursday that urged Democrats not to ditch Pelosi in the middle of a high-stakes legislative battle over the future of health care reform.

Democrats supportive of Pelosi have long argued that even if she stepped aside, Republicans would demonize any new leader the party elevated.

There's also an even more basic reality: Showing that the party will dump its leader if Republicans are persistently negative enough about that leader only gives the GOP more incentive to use aggressive tactics -- and puts the next Democratic leader on tepid ground from the outset.

"They always want to choose our leaders," Pelosi said Thursday. "And usually they go after the most effective leaders."

There are, though, reasons to believe Pelosi poses a unique political problem for Democrats.

Her approval ratings are low, and while House Speaker Paul Ryan's are similarly weak, the idea of ousting Ryan doesn't animate Democratic voters the way defeating Pelosi proved to motivate conservatives in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, as well as the special election in Georgia.
President Donald Trump earlier Thursday even tweeted he'd like her to stick around.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/.....index.html

There never should have been any expectations of victory in any of the GOP held seats that were up for grabs in Special Elections.

Creating these expectations and then falling fairly short of them has created this visceral need to somehow cast this failure on a single individual rather than actually doing what they should have done in November and taken a step back to figure why they lost in the first place.

The same approach is taken and seemingly met with surprise when it doesn't work.

For the moment the Democrats need to take a step back and perhaps realize that folks who voted Trump in November are not "regretting" the fact that they did not vote for Trump quite to the extend that perhaps the Democrats may hope they are.

The Democrats have about a year and change before the Midterms;
They should be heading out to those States that exist between New York and California and build policy around that as New York and California will line up behind the Democrats regardless of these policy.

The Democrats' long losing streak continued this week in a Southern suburban district that Donald Trump barely won last fall. The party's great hope for the Georgia seat was a $24 million man whose victory would have likely had a seismic impact on Washington's direction, rattling Republicans in Congress already nervous about the president. But Jon Ossoff lost Tuesday's special election to Karen Handel - despite running at a time when the president and his Republican allies in Congress suffer from record-low approval ratings. Neither the GOP's unpopularity nor the Democrats' ability to organize marches, raise millions or attack the Trump administration's crazed approach to governing changed Tuesday's outcome.

The Democrats simply lost. Again.

The party has been on a historic run over the past eight years - all in the wrong direction. Since Barack Obama's breathtaking victory in 2008, Democrats have been wheezing their way through one political defeat after another. They have lost more than 1,000 state legislative seats and governorships and now control only one-third of the country's legislative chambers. And it is not just in red or purple states where Democrats' fortunes have collapsed. In deep-blue Connecticut, Democrats held twice as many state Senate seats as Republicans in 2008. That advantage has been erased entirely. In the state's House chamber, Democrats back then controlled 114 seats to Republicans' 37. Today, the GOP is only a handful of seats away from taking control. All in a state where Hillary Clinton trounced Trump.

Across the country, Democrats are weaker on the state level than at any time since William McKinley was president. They control fewer governorships than at any time since Woodrow Wilson was in the White House and have forfeited more seats to Republicans in the U.S. House than at any time since Herbert Hoover was elected.

The party's latest setback has only heightened its internal tensions, with some calling for the ouster of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. But an even bigger challenge for Democratic leaders will be managing the intraparty fight between left-wing heretic hunters and more moderate forces hoping to rebuild Franklin D. Roosevelt's coalition of ideologically diverse allies.

Roosevelt's melange of Northern progressives and Southern conservatives passed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Civil Rights Act. It dominated Congress for most of the 20th century. Tearing down that big tent in favor of a more ideologically homogenized movement would be a recipe for political disaster.

Instead, to win nationally, Democrats must start thinking locally. Tip O'Neill famously said that all politics are local, and the liberal Boston speaker of the House practiced what he preached.

Because of it, O'Neill's party dominated national politics for decades by recruiting conservatives in the South, moderates in the Midwest and liberals in large industrial states. That embrace of ideological diversity kept Republicans in the political wilderness for 40 years, and I saw the strategy's impact firsthand during my time in Congress, even during a period when Republicans were in control of the House.

In 1998, Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and I traveled the country helping Republicans in tough election fights. One night we found ourselves in a conservative Kentucky district where the Republican should have been ahead by 20 points. I pulled the candidate aside and began peppering him with questions.

"How weak is your opponent on the Second Amendment?"

"Oh, he's got a 100 percent rating with the NRA," came the response.

"What about abortion? Any weaknesses there?" I asked.

"The guy is pro-life."

I smiled, excused myself and walked over to Graham. "Enjoy the hors d'oeuvres. This race is over." And so it was. The Democrat was so culturally aligned with the Southern district he wanted to represent that middle-class voters could vote for a candidate they also perceived as aligned with their economic interests. On Tuesday, by contrast, Georgia voters were less comfortable with Ossoff, as they have been with Democrats across the South for some time.

Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 when their views were out of step with all of New England and most of the Midwest. In that election, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., then the leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, was canny enough to put aside ideology and recruit pro-gun, antiabortion candidates to pick off conservative seats that would have otherwise been out of reach. Today, the situation is reversed, with many Democratic leaders and activists more focused on ideological purity than on regaining political power.

Continuing on that course will lead to even more Democratic defeats, and to what Democrats fear most: more support in Congress for Trump.

Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, hosts the MSNBC show "Morning Joe.” This column first appeared in The Washington Post.

There never should have been any expectations of victory in any of the GOP held seats that were up for grabs in Special Elections.

Creating these expectations and then falling fairly short of them has created this visceral need to somehow cast this failure on a single individual rather than actually doing what they should have done in November and taken a step back to figure why they lost in the first place.

The same approach is taken and seemingly met with surprise when it doesn't work. For the moment the Democrats need to take a step back and perhaps realize that folks who voted Trump in November are not "regretting" the fact that they did not vote for Trump quite to the extend that perhaps the Democrats may hope they are.

My take is different. Probably the Democrats have generated these false expectations because they have done it successfully before, and it worked. Trump only barely carried this district. It was a rational target, a staunchly Republican seat, but made up of the managerial classes who were most embarrassed by Trump.

The reason it didn't work is that people have much more control over the published facts. The mobilization on the left sparked a mobilization on the right. It failed because information transmits so quickly now. But there is meaning in the result -- there is no big disillusionment with Trump. I think people are pleasantly surprised, as you say.

Quote:

The Democrats have about a year and change before the Midterms;
They should be heading out to those States that exist between New York and California and build policy around that as New York and California will line up behind the Democrats regardless of these policy.

Is exactly the same trap the GOP/Tea Party fell into when they were trying to capture the House and Senate.

Its going to be a long and interesting year for the Democrats thats for sure.

You will notice that Trump is 'still having rallies, which draw gratifying crowds. It seems to me that, to succeed, Trump has to rally people behind him, and use that pressure to keep the legislators in line. I think what it comes down to is that Trump has to hurt the Democratic Party in the next midterm election.

I disagree with you about the Tea Party. The Tea Party was a very sophisticated thing. It was a web, a network, rather than a hierarchy with a corporate identity. It dabbled with spokespeople, but its main effect was to organize networks of people who mounted primary challenges to politicians they targeted. They are a significant reason the massive changes in Congress, from the comfortable control of both houses to the loss of both. The Tea Party could not penetrate the national political apparatus of either party, so they never affected the presidential race, in large part because Obama used the IRS against them. It is a great unexamined scandal, many times more serious that Watergate because it was so effective in cutting off the democratic protest.

But the Tea Party didn't fall into a trap. They prevailed, they just were aware, from the start, that forming formal political action group would misdirect them. They have been part of the primary challenges, and the huge changes in governorships and state legislatures. These people are a significant part of Trump's constituency, you can count on it. And the Tea Party was a large group of people, previously uninvolved, who were reacting to the path of government, running on borrowed money. They were worried about their social security and had seen a lot of the equity in their homes disappear.

Trump won by using rallies and twitter, and getting around the media any way he could. He has changed everything by revealing to us so much about how things have been 'rigged'. The Wikileaks material helped a lot too. You could say, at least, that the fight against Clinton has revealed how much corruption there is in Washington. The Department of Justice and the FBI had become political instruments and still are. Ditto with the intelligence forces. What was most probably going on with the Clinton Foundation if it wasn't basically getting foreign interests the influence they needed? There is, no doubt, an underside of this we will never see, the way that the Clinton money was distributed amongst politicians! Don't bet there aren't Republicans on that list.

Trump may be stymied by Obamacare, but he has made big improvements just by winding back Obama's executive orders. And he is making progress in international affairs. Immigration is a big plus for him. He has NATO paying attention, and put trade renegotiation on the agenda with Canada and Mexico, and the rest of the world soon. His media coverage is highly partisan, but people don't seem to be following their lead.

The legislative battle is only starting. It will be Trump's test.

////////////////////////////////////////

Dick Morris has some interesting things to say about how the funding structures of US politics has 'nationalized' local special elections.

My take is different. Probably the Democrats have generated these false expectations because they have done it successfully before, and it worked. Trump only barely carried this district. It was a rational target, a staunchly Republican seat, but made up of the managerial classes who were most embarrassed by Trump.

The reason it didn't work is that people have much more control over the published facts. The mobilization on the left sparked a mobilization on the right. It failed because information transmits so quickly now. But there is meaning in the result -- there is no big disillusionment with Trump. I think people are pleasantly surprised, as you say.

I don't disagree;
There have been instances where victories have been willed into being.

The issues is for the Democrats that hasn't materialized recently;
From the Presidency to Kansas to Montana and now Georgia.

Sooner or later there has to be a realization that maybe the rest of the US isn't reading from the same playbook as New York and California?

Bugs wrote:

But the Tea Party didn't fall into a trap. They prevailed, they just were aware, from the start, that forming formal political action group would misdirect them. They have been part of the primary challenges, and the huge changes in governorships and state legislatures. These people are a significant part of Trump's constituency, you can count on it. And the Tea Party was a large group of people, previously uninvolved, who were reacting to the path of government, running on borrowed money. They were worried about their social security and had seen a lot of the equity in their homes disappear.

When I say "trap" please understand I am not being disparaging.

It took the movement several years to realize that guys like Ted Cruz can't win in Maine in the same manner that Susan Collins likely couldn't win in Indiana.

You need to know your voter base well enough to assure you get the right kind of GOP nominee which also reflects the electorate.

The Senate map is littered with Democrat Senators who have their seat because the Tea Party was simply refining its message and methodology.

The Democrats using a Primary to oust Joe Manchin assures they lose a Senate seat in West Virginia but they get to be principled in their loss which will still be a loss in reality, much like Republicans in Indiana six years ago.

The road they are going down is that you are either with us;
Or we will shame you into conforming in what we are.

That's not effective road when you have Senators in Indiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Ohio, and Florida up in 2018.

I am glad to hear you say that because I think the Tea Party has been wrongly described by the media as a right-wing racist group. It was just the opposite, it was a bunch of disgusted people, initially disgusted with the bank bailouts, but later, the huge debt that it was clear the Obama administration was willing to take on. They were often people who had never participated in politics, except as voters, and there were lots of Democrats there too. And Independents. It was just people who were anxious about their own social security.

It was a nonetheless very sophisticated movement, for such amateurs. They refused to back any party initially, trying to improve Congress through both parties. They decided to take a form that the media couldn't report on. Their strategy evolved into a plan to take the worst offenders amongst politicians through primary challenges. They felt unrepresented, and that both parties were 'enemies' and that they should mount primary challenges to representatives in both parties.

The Democrat big city machines were inpenetrable to the Tea Party. Obama's IRS kept the Tea Party out of presidential politics, so the struggle focussed on the Republican Party because it was more vulnerable and demoralized. And perhaps because people like Sarah Palin got the megaphone for awhile.

But another part of it is that so much of its leadership -- which was all local -- was made up of women -- disproportionately women, let's say. I don't know how that affected things, but it's an interesting fact.

To me, it's a tremendous vindication of American political institutions, that this rebellion has fed into the system the way it has, despite all the obstacles it has faced. America wants to reform itself. The great issues are about to be joined. The old playbook, with its left-right axis, has been (temporarily) cast aside. Now it's a battle between globalism and nationalism.

Rothenberg has updated its 2018 Senate Projections;
Granted its early and certain candidates in certain seats can certainly skew results;

However I found it interesting that Democrat seats in Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Missouri are deemed "Toss-up" where historically the Democrat incumbent has at least got the benefit of a "Leans D".

My expectation was always that Indiana and Montana would go Republican;
However the other three have fairly popular Democrat Senators and in the case of West Virginia and North Dakota fairly Conservative ones.

Its going to be interesting.

Last edited by cosmostein on Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

I think that the tectonic plates of politics are rapidly changing. I mean that massive changes are underway as the Millennials make way for . It's as if half a century of more of building welfare states has suppressed a set of grumbles, but that it has been so successful that the grumbles can be heard a long way away.

Take Afro-Americans as an example. They are still 95% Democrats and have been since The War on Poverty. But what if Trump gets an effective start on Charter Schools? Suddenly, the vote split could be 75-25 and the enthusiasm on the Trump/Republican side. That could make whole states politically competitive at the Presidential level. Imagine Illinois if 25% if the Black vote went Republican! And if Trump paid off with another bit of good policy, it could change things dramatically again.

It's similar with the old working class communities. Traditionally Democrat -- but vulnerable. They are riddled with opioid addiction and family breakup is normal. (It's way worse than in Canada that way. We should be thankful that our problems aren't on the scale of the Americans. Not yet.)

These two voting blocks were once 'legs' of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, there are likely parts of the old Republican Party that will fall away too. I simply see our society having stepped on a snake in some kind of cosmic Snakes & Ladders.

What is emerging here is a pragmatic conservatism, one that consolidates the overblown welfare state into something that can be sustained and has value to the people.

The Democrats are in a state of confusion. A lot will depend on how they come out of rhat confusion. Right now. it's all vitriol and sneering innuendo. But where are they going to land? What are their issues for a future campaign as a national party? They aren't even thinking of that. I think, in the end, they end up with the union/big city machine nexus.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum